Menu

Solipsistic Logic

OK, you know the drill,..stop, wait, don’t hit play just yet.

Before you think I’m being unusually cruel by posting this, try to pause a moment and observe the particulars of how Chelsea’s process works. Don’t assume I’m poking fun at all women; I’m using this as an illustration of process. She’s obviously not the sharpest tool in the drawer, and I can already hear the NAWALT echoes from the Matrix, but try to tune out the hilarity of this and understand how she constructs her reasoning here. It’s a fascinating insight into the approach average women use when calculating rational matters. I have no doubt that offended women will seek to dissociate themselves from this sort of ignorance, but I’m not focusing on ridicule here, I’m interested in the process.

From the beginning Chelsea can’t appear to have not given the topic its logical due diligence. So she’s has to prove an effort has been made on her part by offering a lengthy breakdown of how she figured it out. Watch any Sarah Palin interview and you’ll get the idea; it’s similar to having to show your work when doing a mathematical computation in school. After a lengthy analysis, “yeah, I dunno how you’d work that out.”

Next we move into the solipsistic logic that is women’s default when required to formulate a logical-sounding theory. Chelsea is kind enough to verbalize this for us; “if I run a mile in like,..9 minutes,..but when I’m really in shape, it’s like,..7 minutes,..when I’m really in shape, and that like takes me a mile. An I’m running at like 10 miles per hour, and that’s pretty fast for a human being,..”, however this is often an unspoken, subconscious process for women. As I’ve describe in past post, women’s solipsism and emotional wiring is generally the primary conduit through which problem solving and opinion formulation occurs. That’s not to say that women lack the capacity to be just as rational as men, but it is to say that this solipsistic logic is the innate filter that must be cognitively repressed when arriving at a rational solution to a problem.

To see this in action all a guy needs to do is read any manosphere comment thread to see the frequency with which women will apply their personal, anecdotal experiences to a situation and presume her experience is the global, universally applicable, reality.

Continuing,..once Chel realizes that her personal experience isn’t sufficient to adequately solve the problem she then resorts back to over-explanation of her process, only this time, with more variables added to hedge her bets for when she inevitably is proven uneducated in her assessments. This is called preemptive ego preservation. You see, at a certain point, once personalization and wordy analyzation proves fruitless in solving or misdirecting a solution, there needs to be footnotes and caveats pre-established and readily available when the actual solution is provided. In fact a NAWALT (“not all women are like that”) retort is a prepackaged form of exactly this preemptive ego preservation.

And as you can see, when the actual verifiable solution is presented, she falls back on all of her previous methodologies at once, and includes her previous caveats in her defense in spite of the empirical evidence that disproves her “logic”.

Finally comes the accusations of error on the premises of the poser of the question,..

“you are not making sense, I make sense, you do not make sense…you don’t know the answer, you guestimate like I guestimate…”

Post navigation

77 comments

She’s not listening to the question, she only hears half of it and it’s interrumpted by some internal reference. When she finds an internal reference for part of the question, she thinks she’s got it, and she takes it from there, of course arriving at whatever irrelevant “conclusion”.

So the question has to be asked once and again, and she does the same process again and again. Basically she exhausts her internal references repertoire then gets frustrated because that’s not “enough”, and since you’re putting her in that position, you must be “mean”

Almost as funny as the original video is this “response to MPH” video that popped up in Youtube after the original was over. Check out how the herd protects itself and continues to reframe the question as “Not Chelsea’s fault”

Not sure if that was a goof or not, but again follow the solipsistic stream of logic in this as I outlined in the post. Ramble off irrelevant facts, personalization as prof of evidence, preemptive ego preservations, and ended with ‘your just wrong’ and shame.

This follow up had me LOL
“There are so many factors we didn’t take into account here”
Lauren, is so right. We forgot to take into account that the answer was embedded in the question. She didn’t think to mention that one. I’m surprised she didn’t use the trick question excuse.

Also highly amusing was how she defended Chelsea’s slow running by calling attention to herself. “So what if she’s a slow runner. Not everyone can hit the gym everyday like I do”

So now that this guy has humiliated his wife in front of the whole world, do you think he is still getting some?

Your suggestion to observe the video as a legitimate example of default feminine processes, rather than simply another example of comical female stupidity, was well taken by this reader.

Sure, it’s funny to watch–especially when her husband pans the camera back to himself to record his reactions of gleeful disbelief. But it all becomes less and less funny as I realize that what I’m witnessing is actually (and chillingly) a splintered piece of the larger dysfunctional cultural/societal imperative. In other words, what I saw in the video was this: the very reason incarnate why females in general do not pursue educations and careers in the fields of mathematics, science, programming, etc., but have rather infiltrated and destroyed the fields of the arts and humanities. Science and math, etc., cannot be bent and transformed by feminine solipsism and indignation into something it’s not, by those endeavors’ very natures. The arts and humanities, unfortunately, *can* and *have been* remade into woman’s image (I’m sure Chel would do just fine in an ‘Interpretation of Literature’ class), and we are all the poorer for it.

I take this stand because I really love art, and I always have. I understand that art evolves through historical time, but I also know damn well that we’ll never see the “era-adjusted” likes of Leonardo or Rodin or Ingres ever again.

I can’t say as I agree with that. I know enough women who do have the capacity to rationalize things; my critique is that there is an innate mental process which is an obstacle to a rational process that most feel no necessity to cognitively address, and furthermore feel offended that anyone should expect them to, much less point it out to them and think them stupid.

It’s like men struggling to get past our testosterone and look beyond big tits, a flat stomach and a nice ass before making a rational decision about something. Far too many guys get tripped up by this, in fact there’s a study floating around that indicated that men actually become “stupider” (their words) in the presence of a beautiful woman. There is a cognitive hinderance.

The difference is that ridiculing men’s innate ‘stupidity’ regarding all things sexual is socially reinforced, but even suggesting that women possess their own set of cognitive hinderances to rational thought makes you an automatic misogynist.

Sure, some might find her attractive, but the ‘nice-but-dumb-fake- California blonde-types’ are never truly attractive, are they? The more she opened her mouth the more cringeworthy she became. But hey, she’s a n-i-c-e girl!!! Lucky guy, eh? She should count her lucky stars she’s married. Let’s hope husband doesn’t get bored.

“once Chel[sea] (God, I hate that name, it’s just reeks of preciousness and pretense) realizes that her personal experience isn’t sufficient to adequately solve the problem she then resorts back to over-explanation of her process, only this time, with more variables added to hedge her bets for when she inevitably is proven uneducated in her assessments.”

Perhaps, but there’s a far more simple explanation; self-absorption, if not unearned pride with a hefty dose of vanity.

If this video is legitimate, what was revealing was her inability to look at anything beyond her own limited set of experiences. If she had shown the ability to admit her ignorance in being unable to answer the question then she would have shown remarkable humility. Yet, she couldn’t separate her limited identity from the question. It’s like one of those subtle ticks in conversations like the overuse of ‘I’ and ‘me’ or the interjection of a person’s narrow set of experiences that reveals utter self-absorption and inability to relate to or comprehend anything beyond one’s self. It goes beyond selfishness and points to a level of vanity that deludes one to believing that person is more important that one really is. It’s a trait encountered all too often with American women and even men, a damning indictment of modern American society.

Of course, Vanity is one of the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ often personified (appropriately as it seems) as a woman-from wikipedia;

“In Western art, vanity was often symbolized by a peacock, and in Biblical terms, by the Whore of Babylon. In secular allegory, vanity was considered one of the minor vices. During the Renaissance, vanity was invariably represented as a naked woman, sometimes seated or reclining on a couch. She attends to her hair with comb and mirror. The mirror is sometimes held by a demon or a putto…

…In his table of the Seven Deadly Sins, Hieronymus Bosch depicts a bourgeois woman admiring herself in a mirror held up by a devil. Behind her is an open jewelry box…

“All is Vanity” by C. Allan Gilbert.

…All is Vanity, by Charles Allan Gilbert (1873–1929), carries on this theme. An optical illusion, the painting depicts what appears to be a large grinning skull. Upon closer examination, it reveals itself to be a young woman gazing at her reflection in the mirror…

…Such artistic works served to warn viewers of the ephemeral nature of youthful beauty, as well as the brevity of human life and the inevitability of death.”
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity

the difference is that society has its guns pointed at men forcing us to ‘get past our testosterone’ as you nicely put it. news, movies, music…all attack men wantonly

where is the parallel hysteria for women to get over their cognitive issues?

there is none.

So men become defacto slaves to women’s ridicule. The wise are always slaves to the ignorant especially when the weight of the state is placed behind the ignorant.

tangentially..it is men who do hard science (99% percent of the time). Women scorn and vilify logic (the girl in the response video ‘is that the type of person I want to be’)…where will the next generation of innovation come from?

As a red pill man in the arts – I can attest to this as being true. I know that I plan on doing all I can to fight against it though. I’m a set designer for theatre. I plan on starting my own company with some friends, putting out messages and plays on this and other subjects I care about, and possibly going into academic life as a professor later in life. There I can directly educate men and women on arts and find ways to not give in to the feminine imperative – to find ways to bring masculinity back into the arts in my own little corner of the world.

“Honestly, I feel like the Game bloggers and their readers are getting more and more strident, more and more negative about women. The animus has skyrocketed in the last year or so. I am not sure why. Roissy used to be the most cynical, and he’s a pussycat compared to Rollo or Dalrock.”

I am in the Chicagoland area actually. The company thing is probably a year or two away – its with some people I met in undergrad. We all just moved to Chicago in the last year and are getting our feet under us in the theatre scene here and seeing what we need to do to in order to get a company off the ground.

” If you want to opine on female sexuality, back up your claims with credible sources. I can cite a source for every claim I make. You should do the same. And as Escoffier can tell you, by credible I don’t mean misogynist sociopath.”

Also, here’s a play by a red pill man (or atleast, he writes like one). Its freaking amazing – I’m pushing a company I work with to produce it here in Chicago. If any readers are in Iowa City, it’s being produced there as well. This is the kind of great art I want to be involved in – a ton of great views on the social ideas of today presented by both men and women. I’d hate to see this in the hands of a feminist director (she’d probably portray the men as weak idiots), but in a red pill director this play would be fantastic.

CONSTANTINE
Girls are socialized
so they want a man to be older
take charge
have money
have status
while they play hard to get
and boys are taught to feel stupid
feel inferior
not as smart as girls
then hormones happen
a boy wants a girl
she plays hard to get
so a boy learns to
talk big
develop a line
take all the risk
hit on women
not take the answer no
look for younger women
go for status jobs
how do the women
handle men like this?
they get more hostile
more aloof
they wear high heels
they diet too much
they hate themselves
they blame the men
the men hate them
it’s a vicious circle
it’s a vicious circle
so fuck these women
fuck these women

The real joke is that she barks out ‘misogynist sociopath’ as if it was some sort of scientific definition. (I posted two further quotes in a comment that’s stuck in moderation btw, hence the words ‘it gets better’.) She’s so full of shit.

As has been pointed out by many others in many other instances, notice how often she uses the word “I” to communicate.

On the surface it appears as if she’s merely poking fun at and disapproving of Chel’s (original MPH girl) stupidity. But because of the education I’m receiving from this site, I’m starting to “hear past the words”, so to speak, and instead I’m “hearing” the processes and medium *behind* them. She’s every bit as solipsistic as the female she’s ostensibly put herself above by way of ridicule.

Also, had a good laugh at the second to last paragraph of her newest post. Without irony, SW discussing kicking bad habits-

“There is another type of habitual behavior that involves more cognitive activity, namely people’s interpretation of a situation according to what it means for them and how it fits into the narratives they tell themselves. These behaviors are habitual in the sense that people have chronic ways of interpreting the world.”

Haha, yeah Yohami, that was one of the other women I saw getting tripped up by the same things. It’s too fucking funny. And scary. Definitely makes you understand why there’s so many more men in STEM areas.

Christ almighty. I enjoy your blog BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD please learn proper English grammar. Of note, learn the difference between “it’s” and “its.” Every one of your posts is riddled with errors. Funny how you ridicule this female but don’t have a third-grade level grasp of basic grammatical concepts.

I’m fairly new to your site and the manosphere in general. I started with solvemygirlproblems.com, then read all of Roissy and then your articles (now checking out Dalrock). I really like your writing style and analytical approach to things. I’m seeing things from a very different perspective. I have a question for you…

I’m aware of Roissy’s 12 commandments of poon and that often a woman complaining about not getting enough attention or feeling loved is really suffering a lack of attraction rather than rapport. However, basic instincts often tell me that rather than “weather her storm” when my girlfriend is implying that I don’t care about her, when I actually do, that is a time to actually get angry. Fucking angry! You know, get dragged into the fight. Someone who’s actually invested in another human being resents being told otherwise, right? I don’t know if you take requests on article topics, but as an inexperienced 26 year old male loner, I think time’s running out and I don’t even know how to express myself or ANY emotion and think I’m afraid of having ties to anyone. I have to know how to handle these things. I read a (long) article (by a woman) on how to argue with your girlfriend. Here’s a link to page two of the article:

P.S. I really appreciated your story about the Borderline you had in your life (and how a lot of guys think their ex’s had BPD. I thought my last girl had it from day one (always around, worshiped me, moved fast, paid for everything, constantly telling me how not every girl would be as understanding as her, etc…) I skipped out when I saw anything looking like the Hater (when I didn’t talk to her for two days) after the Seducer and Clinger Stages. I still feel horrible and having since then found out about game. She could very well have just been a regular old attention slut and shit testing. Hell I don’t know. We used to be friends. She tore me a new one verbally afterward and I just took it. I didn’t take the break up well.I just need help figuring out how to game conflict so I don’t throw my whole life away again out of guilt from running out on a girl I think is psycho.

Well, why do you feel you have to argue with her at all? If you’re arguing with her you’re already having a problem – it will get emotional and that’s her arena where she will excel.

If she’s not at that point, have a discussion, take in her opinion first, and then make your decision and stick to it with authority. Depending on the individual, maybe express your desire first, take hers, and then make a decision – she may need to see that you do consider her point of view rather than just going with what you want at all times. But then stay by your decision and don’t stray. Also, say your decision once and then act upon it – repeating yourself won’t help.

This will set you up in a position of authority, that you care about her, protect her, will consider her point of view, but ultimately will act on what you think is right for the both of you. It will also help make it so that she will listen to you because you won’t be repeating yourself, lessening yourself, and that she is expected to act upon/within those decisions.

But if you get in an actual argument she will deflect your arguments and reasons, reframe them, and make them an emotional attack against herself. If you let her do that you are both giving into her world view, letting her dictate the nature of the argument, and making any decision other than exactly what she wants an attack against her. You’ll be destined to lose in one form or another.

She tries to answer the question by stringing words together into arrangements that sound like they might make sense. To her, it’s a purely verbal puzzle. At no stage does she grapple with the underlying concepts of time, speed, and distance.

So I actually tried this on a plate last night. I consider her to be fairly intelligent. I was somewhat surprised when I saw the hamster wheel start spinning immediately…”welllll if you travel a mile in a minute then you add twenty minutes so an hour and twenty minutes maybe? I’m not so good at math” and so on from there with about 5 minutes of more inexplicable algorithms. Her math made more sense then this sorry broad in the video but the point is women’s brains for the most part don’t seem to be hardwired for logic and deductive reasoning. Even the girl in the video knew what MPH stood for but couldn’t put the pieces together. I also got accused of it being a trick question ha!

I appreciate the reply. I completely understand the game POV you gave me and there MUST be times when it’s necessary, but I invite you to check out the link I posted. When you’re girl is arguing w/ u doean’t it ever seem like it is a sign that SHE GIVES A SHIT? You’re renogotiating the terms of the relationship and if you want to take he thing to the next level you had better show you’re invested enough to get pissed?

Your wife (is that you who wrote this? Sorry, first time here…) obviously likes the attention your giving her. Once or twice in there (I didn’t finish the entire video — stopped when you started explaining the methodology…) you could almost see her just beginning to smile…I think they call those micro-expressions. And yes, I’m proud of that word, it’s the first time I’ve used it in written dialogue.

My point is that, I think you’re right that your wife (?) is using solipsistic reasoning, but I also think that she’s using it because she likes the attention AND you give it to her. I actually think that when she comments on it being less than an hour, it’s a ruse to get you involved because she knows she’s getting closer to the answer….

To be honest, it kind of reminds me of my 8-year niece whom I saw yesterday for the first time in a long, long, long time. (Long story behind that one…) She was beginning to tell stories about herself that bordered on lies. One might say that were childish embellishments. The concern of course is that she’s developign some sort of lying disorder, which is probably not the case. She probably likes the attention. She made silly faces, talked about poop, and anything else to get the attention.

You’ll probably disagree. Oh well, I’m used to be wrong.

Thanks for the awesome post! Wonderful food for thought!

Keep it up. I don’t have the guts to do something like that.

Thanks again,

-D
PS – I think there’s definite truth to Some women having trouble with reasoning. I want to omit “some” but I know that’s sexist and just play epistemically proud. From what I’ve seen, women, even women who are good at math, have trouble reasoning about some of the most important things in life. Women who aren’t good at math only have trouble reasoning about math. But now i’m rambling. Thanks again.

“To see this in action all a guy needs to do is read any manosphere comment thread to see the frequency with which women will apply their personal, anecdotal experiences to a situation and presume her experience is the global, universally applicable, reality.”

Did it not occur to you that you are commiting this error as well by using an anectoadal story about your wife? You asked a woman a math question, she gave a confused response, and you apply this as universal to all “average” women.